SAT PAL Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of three Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 116, 127 and 136 of 1971 arising out of a common judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 25th March, 1971 by which the learned Judge has partly allowed the writ petitions.

(2.) The common question raised in these appeals is the true construction and effect of rule 13.4, 13.9 and 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules 1934 (amended from time to time and applied to Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the rules). The rules have been framed under sections 7 and 12 of the Indian Police Act 5 of 1861 and have a statutory force. The material facts for the determination of the question of law are that all three appellants, namely, Sat Pal, Radhey Shyam and Balkar Singh, who were recruited as Constables, were promoted as Head Constables and confirmed as such. Later on, they were placed on what is known as List D framed under rule 13.1 read with rule 13.9. Head Constables placed on this list are eligible for promotion to the next rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and they are also eligible for being sent up for training to the upper police training school at Phillaur after completion of which they may be placed on List E for higher promotion as Sub-Inspectors. The police authorities having confirmed the appellants as Head Constables and having placed them on List D, appointed them as officiating Assistant Sub-Inspectors on various dates (appearing hereinafter) but they kept them- in this officiating capacity for a number of years and did not either confirm them or place them on probation on the way to automatic confirmation under rule 13.18 and also denied them the facility of being sent up for training to the upper school. Eventually the appellants were reverted from the officiating posts to their substantive posts as Head Constables but subsequently orders of reversion were, during the pendency of the writ petition, cancelled presumably following the rule of law laid down in Dalip Singh v. Lt. Governor Delhi Administration and another, 1970 Delhi Law Times 346.

(3.) Aggrieved by the orders of reversion, the appellants filed separate writ petitions in this Court claiming that the orders of reversion be quashed and they be sent up for training in the upper school and be afforded their due seniority, promotion and confirmation.